gordon@trsvax.UUCP (11/23/84)
> Very good! I think this is an interesting point of > discussion. By the "life begins at conception" argument, one > would think that IUD's murder human life. > This also brings up another matter which I've thought of > in conjunction with the "life begins at conception" argument. > It seems to me that one doesn't have to go far from this > argument to get to "birth control is wrong." All of our sex > cells are capable of initiating human life (if they meet up > with the right other-sex cell). What does this say to us > about spermacides, condoms, sponges, etc.? What does this say > to us about male masturbation? It seems to me that any argument along the lines "Birth control is wrong because it wastes the potential of sex cells, and such waste is murder" applies equally, if not more so, to abstinance. All forms of birth control have a chance of failure, even if regularly used properly. Actually practiced abstinance doesn't. There must be an awful lot of murderers out there: many teenagers and singles, married couples living apart or just not "sufficiently" participating in sex, people in prison, etc., wasting the potential of their cells. > > ... > > -Chuck Densinger @ St. Olaf > {decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!densinge Gordon Burditt ctvax!trsvax!sneaky!gordon
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (11/26/84)
>There must be an awful lot of murderers out there: many >teenagers and singles, married couples living apart or just not >"sufficiently" participating in sex, people in prison, etc., wasting the >potential of their cells. > > Gordon Burditt > ctvax!trsvax!sneaky!gordon > Not to mention the worst offenders of all: homosexuals. These people are wasting all that potential and even enjoying it!!! <-: <-: <-: Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (11/26/84)
From a biological standpoint, it seems to me that sex cells only become an individual, a human being, when a certain specific event takes place: conception. After that it grows on its own. If a human life begins at conception it is not because of its potential to be human life, that potential has been fulfilled. In this case I see no logical connection between protecting egg and sperm (which are not human beings in themselves) and protecting a conceived human being. At any rate the question seems moot when dealing with elective abortion. Most women aren't even sure they are pregnant until they are several weeks pregnant. If a human life doesn't begin at conception, does it begin when the woman knows she's pregnant? When *does* it begin? Are pro-choicers trying to answer that question, or just muddy the waters? -- The unaborted, Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/28/84)
In article <4182@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >From a biological standpoint, it seems to me that sex cells only become >an individual, a human being, when a certain specific event takes place: >conception. After that it grows on its own. If a human life begins at >conception it is not because of its potential to be human life, that potential >has been fulfilled. > This is incorrect, from a biological standpoint the moment of fertilization(conception) is not particularly special. To summarize: 1) The ovum is freed from the mother when it is ejected from the ovary, in a sudden manner. 2) The only *immediate* effect of fertilization is to stimulate undifferentiated cell division. 3) The genetic impact of fertilization is delayed until cell differentiation begins, some time later. Therefor -- Biologically there are *no* clear, sharp dividing lines, and *any* demarcation point is of necessity arbitrary. The issue must therefore be decided on different grounds.
johnston@spp1.UUCP (11/29/84)
> In article <4182@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >From a biological standpoint, it seems to me that sex cells only become > >an individual, a human being, when a certain specific event takes place: > >conception. After that it grows on its own. If a human life begins at > >conception it is not because of its potential to be human life, that potential > >has been fulfilled. > > > > This is incorrect, from a biological standpoint the moment of > fertilization(conception) is not particularly special. > To summarize: > 1) The ovum is freed from the mother when it is ejected > from the ovary, in a sudden manner. > > 2) The only *immediate* effect of fertilization is to stimulate > undifferentiated cell division. > > 3) The genetic impact of fertilization is delayed until > cell differentiation begins, some time later. > > Therefor -- Biologically there are *no* clear, sharp dividing lines, > and *any* demarcation point is of necessity arbitrary. > The issue must therefore be decided on different grounds. Thanks for the biology lesson, but read the rest of Paul's posting. By the time a woman suspects she's pregnant, is tested, and makes an appointment to have an abortion, all this has taken place. (I'm talking a minimum of a month). At that point, we know the result (IF LEFT UNINTERRUPTED). Mike Johnston
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/03/84)
} }In article <4182@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: }>From a biological standpoint, it seems to me that sex cells only become }>an individual, a human being, when a certain specific event takes place: }>conception. After that it grows on its own. If a human life begins at }>conception it is not because of its potential to be human life, that potential }>has been fulfilled. }> } }[Stanley Friesen:] } This is incorrect, from a biological standpoint the moment of }fertilization(conception) is not particularly special. }To summarize: } 1) The ovum is freed from the mother when it is ejected } from the ovary, in a sudden manner. } } 2) The only *immediate* effect of fertilization is to stimulate } undifferentiated cell division. } } 3) The genetic impact of fertilization is delayed until } cell differentiation begins, some time later. } }Therefor -- Biologically there are *no* clear, sharp dividing lines, } and *any* demarcation point is of necessity arbitrary. } The issue must therefore be decided on different grounds. I think no. 2 above is unnecessary reductionism. It isn't *just* undifferentiated cell division. It is also the begining of the natural development of a human individual which never happens apart from the event of fertilization (of some kind). The differentiation of cells ocurrs not as the result of an external event (which fertilization can be viewed as from the standpoint of the ovum) but seems to happen as a matter of course; the mechanism for it still being pretty much a mystery to biologists. On these grounds no. 2 is just as much a genetic impact as no 3. After, all even the undifferentiated cells contain the genetic code of a unique human individual. It seems like, in order for us to consider conception a sharp dividing line, you would have it produce a fully developed infant as its "immediate" result (or maybe immediate cell differentiation?). This seems to me to be placing impossible (or arbitrary) requirements on a biological event in order to support a preconcieved conclusion. (i.e. that there is no conclusion.) Anyway, the whole reason for my response was just to show that Monty Python's (from whom some people seem to be getting their ideas) reasoning that "ever sperm is sacred..." if human life begins at conception is faulty. I'm not claiming that this point is our whole basis for argument, just that it isn't irrelevant. The more immediate question is what are we killing in an elective abortion. Not ova or zygotes; which are the stages of human development being discussed here. -- The "resurrected", Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd -- The "resurrected", Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd